Csehy v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Third Division

June 29, 2018

CSEHYv.THE STATE.

ELLINGTON, P. J., BETHEL and GOBEIL, JJ.

GOBEIL, JUDGE.

Following
a stipulated bench trial in Cobb County Superior Court, Rand
Jason Csehy was convicted of two counts of possession of
methamphetamine. Csehy appeals his convictions, asserting
that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress
the results of the blood tests on which the State relied to
prove its case. Specifically, Csehy contends that the blood
tests at issue resulted from a prior, illegal search of
Csehy's urine and were subject to suppression as the
fruit of the poisonous tree. For reasons explained more fully
below, we agree with Csehy that the court-ordered test of his
urine violated his Fourth Amendment rights. We further find,
however, that even in the absence of these test results,
there existed probable cause to support the warrant for a
search of Csehy's blood. Accordingly, we affirm the
denial of Csehy's motion to suppress.

At a hearing on a motion to suppress, the trial judge sits as
the trier of fact. On appeal from the grant or denial of such
a motion, therefore, this Court must construe the evidence
most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment of the
trial court, and that court's findings as to disputed
facts and credibility must be adopted unless clearly
erroneous.

Watts v. State, 334 Ga.App. 770, 771 (780 S.E.2d
431) (2015) (citation and punctuation omitted).
"Although we owe substantial deference to the way in
which the trial court resolved disputed questions of material
fact, we owe no deference at all to the trial court with
respect to questions of law, and instead, we must apply the
law ourselves to the material facts." Hughes v.
State, 296 Ga. 744, 750 (770 S.E.2d 636) (2015).

The
relevant facts are undisputed and show that in September
2014, Csehy was representing a criminal defendant in a case
before Cobb County Superior Court Judge Adele Grubbs. Prior
to calling the case for trial, Judge Grubbs observed Csehy
acting "a little different," in that he seemed
unable to sit for any length of time and kept running in and
out of the court room.[1] Before proceeding with trial, Grubbs
conducted a bench conference with Csehy and his client; at
that time, the judge observed that Csehy was unable to stand
without leaning on something, he was sweating profusely, and
his eyes were bloodshot. Judge Grubbs began the bench
conference by telling Csehy's client, "[Y]ou need to
be aware that your lawyer is [currently the] subject of a
petition for disciplinary action before the State Bar of the
Supreme Court of Georgia. Are you aware of
that?"[2] When the client responded affirmatively,
Grubbs explained that the disciplinary proceeding could
result either in Csehy's voluntary suspension from the
practice of law or his disbarment. The client stated that he
understood the situation and, in response to a question from
Grubbs, stated he wanted to continue with Csehy representing
him at trial. Upon hearing the client's response, Grubbs
told Csehy, "Mr. Csehy, I've been watching you in
the courtroom and I'm concerned about you and I'm
going to have one of the deputies take you down and have a
drug test. If you will, please." Csehy began to respond
but the judge cut him off, telling him, "You need to go
with the deputy." The transcript of the colloquy shows
that Csehy then "[left the] courtroom with a
deputy."

Several
hours later, the judge had another colloquy with Csehy and
confirmed that he was continuing to represent the client and
was announcing ready for trial. Judge Grubbs then told Csehy,
"You know, you haven't been able to stand up without
leaning on something. You were a little disheveled, at one
point. Your eyes are bloodshot. And that's not a way you
come into court. And your drug test tested positive for both
cocaine and methamphetamine." Csehy responded that the
drug test must be wrong and blamed his disheveled appearance
on his car's broken air conditioner. Judge Grubbs replied
that Csehy was "in no shape to try a case," at
which point Csehy stated, "Judge, I'll take a blood
test. I will go take one. . . . [I]n all honesty[, ] I
don't even have the money to buy food right now."
The judge rejected Csehy's request for a blood test,
found him in contempt, and sentenced him to five days in the
county jail.

The
following day, the Cobb County District Attorney's office
applied for and obtained a search warrant for Csehy's
blood. The affidavit in support of the warrant stated that a
Cobb County ADA had gotten onto the elevator with Csehy when
he arrived at the courthouse the previous day and noted that
Csehy "had a flushed face and watery eyes that [were]
unusually wide open" and the ADA had opined that
"Csehy appeared to have lacked sleep." The
affidavit further stated that Judge Grubbs

had made assessments of Csehy during the day and she noticed
[that he] showed the physical manifestations of drug usage to
include: glassy eyes, slurred speech, unusual and erratic
speech and thought patterns, short[, ] disjointed spoken
sentences, profuse perspiration and he also had a ruddy
complexion. . . . [Csehy's] appearance was disheveled, he
was fidgety, and he constantly leaned or supported himself
throughout the day.

Additionally,
the investigator averred that Csehy had consented to a urine
test, and that the results of that test were positive for
methamphetamine and cocaine.

After
obtaining the search warrant, the district attorney's
office arranged for Sheriff's deputies to transport Csehy
from the jail to a local hospital, where Csehy was served
with the warrant and where a sample of his blood was drawn.
Forensic analysis of Csehy's blood performed at the GBI
crime lab showed the presence of methamphetamine.

In
December 2014, the State indicted Csehy on a single count
each of possession of methamphetamine and possession of
chlordiazepoxide (a cocaine metabolite). Following his
arrest, Csehy was granted bond, with one of the conditions
requiring him to submit to random drug tests. Csehy's
drug tests for January, February, and March 2015 were all
positive for methamphetamine. The State thereafter entered a
nolle prosequi as to the original indictment and reindicted
Csehy on four counts of possession of methamphetamine, based
on his blood test results in September 2014 and January,
February, and March 2015.

Prior
to trial, Csehy filed a motion to suppress the results of the
September 2014 blood test and all subsequent blood tests.
Csehy argued that all of the blood tests resulted from
Csehy's court-ordered urine test, which violated his
Fourth Amendment rights. Thus, Csehy contended the blood test
results were subject to exclusion as the fruit of the
poisonous tree.

Judge
Grubbs testified at the hearing on the motion to suppress and
stated that on the day in question, Csehy's physical
appearance and conduct led her to believe that he was
"high as a kite," and that she therefore could not
let the trial go forward. And because the client indicated he
wanted to proceed with Csehy as his lawyer, the judge felt
she needed to order the drug test so she would have grounds
for continuing the case.[3] Grubbs acknowledged that she ordered
Csehy to take the test and that she required him to go with a
deputy so that his urine could be obtained. The judge also
conceded that obtaining Csehy's urine constituted a
search and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment. Grubbs explained, however, that she believed she
had the authority to order such a warrantless search because,
"I have a duty as a judge, a sworn duty as a judge, to
preserve the integrity of my courtroom and to make sure the
defendant is adequately defended. [The defendant] has a Sixth
Amendment right to counsel . . . a Sixth Amendment right to
competent counsel."

Charles
Lyda, the investigator with the Cobb County District
Attorney's office who obtained the search warrant,
testified that he was told to get a search warrant for
Csehy's blood based on the fact that Csehy's urine
had tested positive for illegal narcotics. Lyda explained
that before drafting the affidavit he submitted in support of
the warrant, he interviewed Judge Grubbs and the prosecutor
assigned to Judge Grubbs's courtroom. Additionally, Lyda
watched the video from Grubbs's courtroom on the day in
question. According to Lyda, he wrote in his affidavit that
Csehy had consented to the urine test because on the video
Lyda did not see Csehy protesting the order to go and take
the test.

Csehy
testified that he did not consent to the seizure of his urine
and that he believed he was under court order to submit to
the test. Csehy explained that a deputy escorted him to the
test, keeping his hand on Csehy's elbow to make sure
Csehy "wouldn't run off." The deputy also
escorted Csehy to the restroom to obtain the sample and then
escorted Csehy back to the courtroom.

Following
the hearing, the trial court entered an order denying the
motion to suppress. The court found that Csehy did not
consent to the urine test and that the warrantless test was
not justified by exigent circumstances. Nevertheless, the
court concluded that ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.